NATIONAL MEASURES: CANADA, the
EU, NEW ZEALAND, COSTA RICA and URUGUAY favored either deleting the
section’s chapeau or specifying that States should take measures “taking
into account” national conditions “as appropriate.” BRAZIL, supported by
many, proposed that States take measures “subject to” national
conditions, and that measures “may include” the ones listed. The US and
SWITZERLAND said this considerably weakened the language. The EU and
MEXICO preferred that States take measures to achieve “the purpose of
this instrument” rather than “SFM and the Global Objectives.”

On national forest programmes, BRAZIL
and others opposed quantifiable and timebound targets for SFM without
equivalent targets for means of implementation.

On promoting the use of management
tools, COLOMBIA suggested deleting reference to assessing environmental
impacts; many opposed.

The US, with VENEZUELA and others,
proposed deleting reference to implementing policies to promote
“sustainable production” of forest goods and services. COSTA RICA, the
EU and others preferred retaining the original language, including
reference to benefits fostering poverty reduction and rural community
development.

On protecting and using traditional
forest-related knowledge (TFRK), the AFRICAN GROUP proposed inserting
reference to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. INDIA,
VENEZUELA and PAKISTAN opposed specific reference to the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The EU, opposed by the US, proposed deleting reference to benefit
sharing. The DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and others preferred retaining both
references.

The AFRICAN GROUP, COLOMBIA, BRAZIL and
CAMBODIA suggested reference to developing SFM criteria and indicators
based on the seven thematic elements of SFM; the EU, the US,
SWITZERLAND, URUGUAY, the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and MEXICO objected.

The US and others proposed creating
enabling environments for investment by “and involvement of” local
communities. BRAZIL, opposed by SWITZERLAND, suggested creating
environments through “land tenure arrangements serving as incentives for
SFM” rather than “secure land tenure.” The EU suggested inserting
language on national financial strategies for SFM implementation.

On environmental costs and benefits, the
AFRICAN GROUP, with others, proposed adding goods and services provided
by woodlands. INDIA and VENEZUELA, opposed by COSTA RICA and MEXICO,
proposed deleting “goods and services,” and VENEZUELA, deleting “costs.”
The US specified “as appropriate” and proposed alternative language on
promoting recognition and reflection of values in the marketplace.

On forest law enforcement and
governance, COLOMBIA, VENEZUELA and ECUADOR proposed deleting reference
to corruption, while GUATEMALA and INDIA specified corruption between
producer and consumer countries and INDONESIA and CAMBODIA specified in
“forest and forest-related sectors.” SWITZERLAND and others opposed
these amendments. The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by the US, suggested that
strengthening forest law should take into account the safety and health
of forest workers.

On scientific and technological
innovation, the US proposed deleting reference to TFRK. This was
bracketed along with alternative subparagraphs separately promoting such
innovations and TFRK.

On prioritizing SFM, delegates agreed
to: prioritize SFM in development “and other plans, such as poverty
reduction strategies” (EU); and facilitate increased allocation of
official development assistance “and other sources of funding” (EU, NEW
ZEALAND).

On financial incentives, the EU
suggested deleting “financial.” The AFRICAN GROUP preferred “financial
and other” incentives. Delegates agreed to delete: a reference
specifying that incentives be provided for developing countries and
countries with economies in transition only; and a reference to
incentives for planted forests.

On forest governance, BRAZIL added “at
national and international levels.” The US queried “promoting” forest
legislation.

PREAMBLE:
The US, with ARGENTINA, reinserted a paragraph on taking into
consideration lessons learned from the Forum’s
MYPOW for 2001-2005. The
EU preferred “having regard to” rather than “recognizing” the NLBI.

FORUM SESSIONS:
In addressing progress made at sessions, the US proposed, and COSTA RICA
opposed, deleting reference to national plans. The US, AUSTRALIA, the
AFRICAN GROUP and others, proposed adding language on progress towards
achieving SFM. FIJI said means of implementation should include
strengthening of national processes. Delegates reiterated their
positions on whether to include means of implementation as a flagship
theme.

For flagship themes, the US proposed,
inter alia: “Forests and the environment: biodiversity, climate,
land and water (UNFF8)”; and “Integrating forests into economic
development” (UNFF10). SWITZERLAND proposed greater emphasis on climate
change for UNFF8. For UNFF10, VENEZUELA proposed “Forests in the context
of economic development.”

Under common items, the EU proposed
including NLBI implementation and emerging issues and opposed
monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR) and country reports. NORWAY
supported land and forest tenure as cross-cutting issues, but PERU
opposed reference to land tenure.

The AFRICAN GROUP proposed a paragraph
focusing on LFCCsï¿½ special needs. ARGENTINA, COSTA RICA, GUATEMALA and
MEXICO objected, resisting discrepancy in treatment of different forest
types.

On UNFF sessions being a platform for
dialogue, the EU expressed interest in harnessing the political
visibility of the heads of the Rio Conventions. The US, the EU,
ARGENTINA and the AFRICAN GROUP discussed an appropriate formulation on
dialogue with both technical and political stakeholders and
organizations.

INTERSESSIONAL WORK OF
THE FORUM:
Delegates debated the need for, and nature of, intersessional work. The
EU, supported by MEXICO and GUATEMALA, proposed deleting reference to
intergovernmental preparatory meetings (IPMs). Regarding session
preparation, the US proposed a substitute section referring to Bureau
and Secretariat preparation drawing on regional and subregional
processes, CPF member organizations, major group activities, country-led
initiatives, ad hoc expert groups and other advisory bodies.
NORWAY, UKRAINE, INDONESIA, SWITZERLAND, COSTA RICA and AUSTRALIA
supported this as a basis for discussion, while some preferred retaining
reference to ECOSOC resolutions. ARGENTINA urged consistency with ECOSOC
mandates and, supported by VENEZUELA and FIJI, proposed one-week IPMs
three months prior to UNFF sessions.

REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL
INPUTS:
ARGENTINA proposed deleting a subparagraph on the Secretary Generalï¿½s
report on the
MYPOW. The EU opposed
reference to IPMs.

EMERGING PRIORITY ISSUES:
Delegates debated the definition of emerging issues along with
procedures and timing for identifying them. Some felt the Bureau, in
consultation with member States, CPF members, the Forum Secretariat and
stakeholders, should discuss how to address and identify emerging
issues. ARGENTINA questioned giving the Bureau authority. AUSTRALIA
cautioned against attempting to identify emerging issues too far in
advance. BRAZIL agreed, saying that sessions should provide for
unforeseen issues such as disease outbreak. The US clarified that
emerging issues should be, inter alia, urgent, global in scope,
and not already addressed in the agenda. SWITZERLAND cautioned against
imposing rigid criteria.

ENHANCED COOPERATION:
To avoid repetition of other sections and previous UNFF resolutions, the
US, ARGENTINA and VENEZUELA proposed streamlining this section. The EU
cautioned that employing outdated text might forgo new ideas, such as on
LFCCs. IRAN recommended replacing reference to the Rio Conventions with
ï¿½multilateral environmental agreements.ï¿½ SWITZERLAND supported more
active links between CPF members, major groups and member States, and
the US called for provisions to enable more active stakeholder
participation. FIJI and PAPUA NEW GUINEA called for elaborating
references to participation of other stakeholders and major groups.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE
FORESTS: The US, supported by ARGENTINA and the AFRICAN GROUP and
opposed by the EU, proposed alternative text highlighting
information-sharing on activities among member States, major groups and
stakeholders.

MAR:
The US and the EU postponed discussing this section, pending
WGI deliberations
on the NLBI. ARGENTINA agreed, cautioning against duplication
of or contradiction with pre-existing ECOSOC mandates.

DETAILED
MYPOW:
The US proposed deleting text on intersessional activities and the
dynamic nature of the
MYPOW. Some expressed
concern that allowing for adjustments as needed would lead to lengthy
debates at future sessions. PAPUA NEW GUINEA said the
MYPOW should be adapted
as needed.

RESOURCES:
AUSTRALIA, with the EU, bracketed reference to ï¿½additionalï¿½ resources.
The US reserved comments pending further consideration. The EU, with
NORWAY, said donors should be ï¿½invitedï¿½ rather than ï¿½urgedï¿½ to make
contributions. CUBA, with the AFRICAN GROUP, added language on
facilitating developing countriesï¿½ participation in Forum sessions.

REVIEW:
AUSTRALIA expressed concern with undertaking a mid-term review at UNFF9.
MEXICO, the AFRICAN GROUP, CHINA, CUBA and others favored a mid-term
review. To reduce reporting burdens, the EU advocated a scaled-down
review for UNFF9, for which the US expressed interest in seeing a
proposal.

CONTACT GROUP ON THE NLBI

Chair Hoogeveen presented elements for
further deliberations on finance, the facilitative process, national
targets and the conceptual framework for SFM. Developing countries
called for defining the financial mechanismï¿½s scope at
UNFF7 and adopting it at
UNFF8, while developed countries cautioned against tight deadlines. On
the facilitative process, some developed countries suggested it be
demand-driven and based on assessments of existing processes, while
others called for a clear definition of its task. Developing countries
said it should build on existing mechanisms, such as the CPF or the
FAOï¿½s National Forest Programme Facility. On national targets, one
developed country suggested that countries report to UNFF on existing
national and regional targets, while others noted the importance of SFM-related
targets. Deliberations continued into the night.

IN
THE CORRIDORS

Admonitions that NLBI negotiations were
threatening to take two steps backwards for every step forward, as the
African Group had cautioned earlier, appeared to go unheeded Tuesday. A
frustrating morning saw several countries continuing to stall on making
commitments, such as on quantifiable timebound targets, without
reciprocal commitments on implementation assistance. One observer noted
that with no indication as yet of possibilities for quid pro quo
exchange, the only direction for compromise will be towards already
agreed language without any added value.

Meanwhile, the MYPOW
made some headway after appearing to get bogged down in the details of
the matrix for two days, and, as one delegate put it, losing sight of
the bigger picture. As the working group completed a reading of the
Chairï¿½s draft text, and informal consultations sprang up among
delegations on various issues, some commented that they could see light
at the end of the tunnel, one that was not so bright on Monday.

This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Deborah Davenport, Ph.D.,
Reem Hajjar, Stefan Jungcurt,
Leila Mead and Julie Taylor.
The Digital Editor is Dan
Birchall. The Editor is
Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James ï¿½Kimoï¿½ Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
United Kingdom (through the
Department for International
Development ï¿½ DFID), the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment and
Territory General
Directorate for Nature
Protection. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2007 is provided by
the Swiss Federal Office for
the Environment (FOEN), the
Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Environment, the
Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry
for the Environment, the
Ministry of Environment of
Sweden, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
the
UNFF7 can be contacted
by e-mail at <reem@iisd.org>.